BASSETERRE, St. Kitts – SOMETIME today (July 28), Her Ladyship Justice Rita Joseph-Olivetti is expected to render her decision on whether or not a contempt of court application filed by the People’s Action Movement (PAM) against the Attorney General (AG), Dr. the Hon. Dennis Merchant, should be struck out.
Legal counsels for both sides met before Her Ladyship yesterday and presented their arguments on why they contend the motion should be struck out or remain.
Lawyer Sylvester Anthony, who sits on the respondent’s team, submitted to Her Ladyship that the sole grounds of the contempt of court application is based on legal advice which was given or things done, or words spoken in the St. Kitts Nevis National Assembly. He explained that under the Contempt of Court Act, the court has no jurisdiction to inquire into or consider matters discussed in the National Assembly.
Anthony, in support of his argument, drew Her Ladyship’s attention to, among other things, Section 45 of the Constitution of St. Christopher and Nevis which reads, “Without prejudice to any provision made by Parliament relating to the powers, privileges and immunities of the National Assembly and its committees, or the privileges and immunities of the members and officers of the Assembly and of other persons concerned in the business of the Assembly or its committees, no civil or criminal proceedings may be or written in a report to, the Assembly or a committee thereof or by reason of any matter or thing brought by him therein by petition, bill, resolution, motion or otherwise.”
Counsel maintained that in the circumstances, the application for contempt of court is “barred” and the court’s jurisdiction “ousted”. Therefore, he expressed, the contempt of court order should be struck out.
A member of Richards’ legal team, Leslie Haynes, disagreed with Anthony’s submission with his main contention being that in contravention of a court order [injunction], the Electoral and Boundaries Commission Report was made use of.
He gave a timeline of events that led to the filing of the injunction which prohibited use of the report. As part of that timeline, he reminded that court proceedings adjourned on July 8 to allow for an emergency sitting of Parliament, before which a draft proclamation and report were laid. He also reminded that debates were heard and the resolution was passed the following day.
Counsel told the court that among the sworn affidavits which they have, is that of Richard Caines, former politician and former Minister of Government, who explained that he is well aware of and familiar with Parliamentary proceedings and before any bill, resolution etc. is brought before Parliament, it must be approved by Cabinet – of which the AG is a member.
The inference which Haynes asked the court to draw, is that even if the statements made in Parliament are not to be considered, actions which led to the Electoral Boundaries Commission Report being tabled in Parliament constitute a contravention of the court’s order.
The Hon. Justice Joseph-Olivetti said she would give her decision on whether or not the contempt order should be struck out at 10:00 a.m. today.
